It was an act of state-sponsored terrorism. The Guardian also covered the story, somewhat, but the rest of the media ignored it. The BBC didn’t even credit LC, the bastards. Anyway – this is an MEP praising an act of terrorism. And yet he didn’t even get a slap on the wrist for it. Just keep that in mind.

that’s right sunny, i see where you and your clever little head are going with this. Muslimn praises act of terror, headlines, white posh guy does, nothing happens. Genius, absolute genius and cutting political commmentary.

just one small thing – praising an act ideologically driven mass murder, a threat which we face right now is not quite the same as praising an act of French unilateral arrogance that took place over 2 decades ago.

add to this that it’s often an influential, yet unrepresentative, muslim ‘spokesperson’ who says it whereas Bloom is a crusty old right winger from a party that literally has no domestic agenda and your silly little point is rendered completely useless

Terms such as terrorist, freedom fighter, protester, dissident have always been value laden with a bias towards something we can self identify with. It is of course wrong as it fails to acknowledge the very real effects of the actions. I suppose it is one of those manifestations of sloppy, lazy human thinking

Ironically enough the word largely derived from the French revolutionary practice of sinking ships full of their opponents. Their opponents were tied up in the bottom of course. This was a deliberate policy of terror, and the agents who carried it out were called ‘terrorists’.

New Zealanders were of course extremely angry about this hostile act in their territory from a supposedly friendly power and even more furious when the agents responsible returned to France to a hero’s welcome. However, as for calling it “terrorism”. . . – from the French point of view it was “sabotage”, ie to prevent the Rainbow Warrior being a nuisance to them when they were doing nuclear testing. I suppose it was meant to strike fear into Greenpeace. But I don’t think it was the same kind of thing as the 7/7 bombing or the killings at Mumbai. If wildly nationalistic French had gone into Auckland and bombed random passers-by so that New Zealand would not offer a berth to the Rainbow Warrior, I would call that “terrorism”. However, “terrorism” is difficult to define.

However, as for calling it â€œterrorismâ€. . . â€“ from the French point of view it was â€œsabotageâ€, ie to prevent the Rainbow Warrior being a nuisance to them when they were doing nuclear testing.

Thats just moronic sophistry; it was a despicable and cowardly attack on a civilian target that presented no threat to the French. To say it wasn’t an act of terrorism is to argue that the irish republican fanatics who blew up a car bomb outside Newry courthouse aren’t terrorists; after all they weren’t randomly targeting people but a building.

@ Don # 11 – ‘Shrewd’ originally meant ‘wicked’, ‘evil’ … the term was first recorded as ‘cunning’ in the early 16th century … now it is more commonly taken as meaning ‘astute’ as in practical hard-headed intelligence

Hey, Iâ€™m not defending their action. Iâ€™m a New Zealander and remember my baffled fury at the time, and my further baffled fury that the agents who had done it were eventually released. And more baffled fury at the crappiness of their operation â€“ they had landed at some remote beach where foreigners arriving would be remembered for months. The agents were posing as a honeymoon couple but didnâ€™t act like a married couple when they were apprehended. The French were behaving like arrogant bastards towards what they evidently thought was a nation of hicks.

However, to get back to the definition of terrorism. Would you call eg the recent shooting of the Hamas guy in Dubai supposedly by Mossad an act of terrorism? I mean it was presumably meant in part to put the frighteners on other Hamas guys, but wasnâ€™t its primary motive rubbing out a guy who supplies arms? Itâ€™s targeted assassination, isnâ€™t it? So I thought â€“ and I might be wrong about this â€“ that the primary motivation of the French against the Rainbow Warrior was to sabotage the boat rather than putting the frighteners on Greenpeace.

Yes, who tries to help a potential invader or otherwise reduce production for whatever reason. By damaging equipment or deliberately working inefficiently. When you cross the line into killing people then the terms are not interchangeable.

Would you call eg the recent shooting of the Hamas guy in Dubai supposedly by Mossad an act of terrorism?

Id argue that al-Mabhouh wasn’t a civilian; that said i think his death was little more than an extrajudicial killing. I don’t endorse his views but the targetted murder of individuals whether by israeli agents or uk/us/israeli warplanes is abhorrent.

Those that endorse those operations will undoubtably say ‘we’re at war’, which is a fair argument to make – except that combatants captured in the ‘war on terror’ aren’t treated in accordance with the geneva convention.

‘Those that endorse those operations will undoubtably say â€˜weâ€™re at warâ€™, which is a fair argument to make â€“ except that combatants captured in the â€˜war on terrorâ€™ arenâ€™t treated in accordance with the geneva convention.’

An objective argument would be ‘we are in occupation’ and as in all occupations ‘resistance must be seen to be futile’. And this is an act of a full spectrum occupation – of biblical proportions.

I think I am right in saying that during WW2 spies and agent provocateurs were treated quite badly, whereas footsoldiers were treated OK, except by the Japanese perhaps. It seems to me that nowadays we, what, demonise any opposing forces as though they were all unentitled to Geneva Rights.